Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Immigration: What Conservatives Should Say
Scott Walker’s response to the ambush was solid, but it felt like he was dodging the questions about deportation. Here’s my proposal for what candidates should say:
- Why is the United States an attractive destination for hard workers from all countries? Because it has rule of law. We need to enforce immigration laws to keep this place an attractive destination for talented, hard-working people from all countries. Countries fail when they fill with scofflaws.
- Not everyone who breaks the speed limit receives a ticket. But if you break the speed limit, you have to be prepared to deal with a ticket. Similarly, no-one is arguing for mass deportation. But if you are caught living in the country illegally, you need to be prepared for deportation.
- We need to reform our immigration laws to make it easier for legal immigrants to enter (No need to mention that they should have the right skills).
- With respect to the particular issue of our southern neighbor, the US can work with Mexico to help it become a better country for its people. This work includes promoting competitive markets, supporting Mexican law enforcement, and exporting education solutions.
As far as facts go, that first statement, unfortunately, admit many exceptions. But as far as a message goes, what else would you propose?
EDIT: If you want to see a great response, check out Dan Hanson’s at #26. Perfect.
Published in General
Pretty sure I did ..
No you don’t. We are not obligated to promise or commit to anything until the border is secure ( for years years) and issues like the Visa tracking system and e-verify are in place – for years. In mean time, they can ‘live in the shadows’ and take four minutes of a presidential candidate’s time, as someone who is breaking the law, to ask why his his status isn’t being adjudicated to his liking on his timetable. Sheesh!
Q: “Do you want me, like, to come home … come from school and my dad get deported?”
A: Yes, and you should go with him.
Edit:
A. And furthermore, under a Walker administration, such a brazen attempt to evoke sympathy for your lawlessness would be enough evidence to put you all on a plane tonight.
Yeah, that’s what it’s all about isn’t it—electing someone with an “R” next to their name? FYI: Both McCain and Romney were supposedly “electable”—that worked out well.
The right approach would be to expose the setup by saying THIS IS A SETUP!!!! The truth is refreshing isn’t it? Since you’re interested, here are some questions that Scott could have asked:
And finally, the pièce de résistance:
At this point I’m sure that the person(s) responsible for this sick and disgusting game would be sh*tting their pants. This is how a real leader would have handled the situation.
“We need to reform our immigration laws to make it easier for legal immigrants to enter (No need to mention that they should have the right skills).”
Actually, we don’t. Unrestrained immigration since the mid-1960s has changed this country for the worse. Sadly, we’ll be a one-party state in an election or two. But keep selling the more-legal-immigrants line.
The Abenaki people didn’t like it when Yankee New Englanders immigrated into their country, and then they had to be the ones to assimilate.
Great point and it reminds me why the calls for “comprehensive immigration reform” are so disingenuous. They want an omnibus bill without accountability. They don’t want piecemeal reform with measurable results.
Perhaps this heavy-handed approach (I’m speaking for the rest of your reply as well) would work. Perhaps. I don’t recall hearing anything like this from a successful candidate for president, but I am really uninformed about politics.
So let’s look for a precedent: can we find a successful candidate for state-wide or nation-wide office who has responded this aggressively to a question–someone who has turned the question into something very close to a personal attack on the motives of the questioner–and succeeded?
I’m aiming for the tone of “It’s morning in America,” but I’m open to learning about the power of other tones as well. I just need to see some examples.
Aggressiveness, even in response to a setup like this, would be seen as bullying
This is why our country is lost: Our “leaders” are a bunch of lazy cowards, completely lacking in imagination. In case you haven’t noticed we’re way past “Morning in America”…this is all out war for the survival of our country. These questions could be asked in a polite and civil way. And so what if you’re accused of being heavy-handed? Keep telling the truth! Turn the tables on the b*sterds (I’m referring to the people who are responsible for the setup) and ask why would they would exploit a little girl and an illegal alien like this. Explain to Americans what is really going on! Stop following the left’s narrative and change the conversation for heaven’s sake!! God, we’re so stupid and timid that we deserve to lose.
Oh no! Please don’t call us bad names!! Do you know how pathetic that sounds? A **real** leader would be able to cut through the interference and change people’s perceptions—if done right, this could have been a great teachable moment, not about illegal immigration, but about how the left operates. Again, we deserve to lose…and probably will.
Sorry, but this is nonsense. Any powerful man who stomps on someone else is not showing leadership or greatness. He is being unkind.
The Reticulator
You’ve bought into the lie that America is a “nation of immigrants.”
America is a “settler nation,” much like Australia and South Africa. White Europeans established a nation out of a wilderness populated by aboriginal savages and then separated from the mother country. Immigrants came later, after the nation was already a fact.
I feel the exact same way about what you’re saying. Good luck!
Settlers and immigrants are often the same thing. The Abenaki who had settled in Vermont were displaced by European-American immigrants who came from New England.
One branch of my own family tree is that of immigrants who left Germany in 1876 and came to this country to be settlers. Some of them got land under the 1862 Homestead Act. They were both immigrants and settlers.
In the 19th century there were some historical revisionists who adopted the idea that the settlers/immigrants were OK in taking land from the Natives, because the native people didn’t “use” the land the way the new people did. Some of the treaty commissioners adopted this way of thinking. Sort of like the Marxists who say, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” These Americans thought their needs should supercede any use the Indians had made of their own settled lands.
The Reticulator:
“In the 19th century there were some historical revisionists who adopted the idea that the settlers/immigrants were OK in taking land from the Natives, because the native people didn’t “use” the land the way the new people did. Some of the treaty commissioners adopted this way of thinking. Sort of like the Marxists who say, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” These Americans thought their needs should supercede any use the Indians had made of their own settled lands.”
They were right, it was OK. Still is.
I’m glad for your sake you weren’t around then to tell the settlers that everything belonged to the Indians. 19th Century Americans had a tendency to “debate” those premises with tar and feathers.
However today you could get a job teaching high school history. I hear your kind of thinking is real popular in progressive circles.
By the way, the Abenaki no more settled Vermont than the wolves who roamed there at the same time did. Or maybe I missed the history chapter where it spoke of Abenakiopolis, Abenaki University, Abenaki General Hospital and the Abenaki Cathedral.
That’s funny, because a lot of people in the 19th century didn’t think it was OK.
Settlers had a wide variety of opinions on the subject. There were some who thought like you do, and many who took more nuanced views. Some of the children of those who thought that way didn’t like what happened to the Indian children they used to play with, and told about it later in life. I don’t happen to know of any tar-and-feather stories on this subject; however, I do know of some tar-and-feather stories on other topics, e.g. claim jumping.
Progressives think like you do – that it’s OK to use the power of government to take things away from some people and distribute them to others.
Yes, there were late 19th century writers who tried to salve their consciences by referring to the long-gone Indians in the same breath with wild animals. Many of these were ignorant people, a generation or two removed from the people who actually had interacted with Indians.
But the Indians, while not as fixed as their conquerors, did invest in fields and structures. It was no small matter to uproot themselves and settle in a new place where they had to start working the fields anew. This was one reason the native leader Black Hawk had the women on his side when he wanted to get his home back.
The Euro-American settlers didn’t have Settler University, Settleropolis, Settler General Hospital, and Settler Cathedral, either. In the Great Lakes region the villages and houses of the Native peoples were often not that different from those of the white settlers who displaced them. As you go from north to south, the Indians tended to be more settled and less nomadic, relying more on agriculture and less on winter hunts. The ones whose lands were taken first were the more settled ones. And when Indians tried to adopt American-style agriculture and land ownership methods, they were blocked.
Reticulator, your comments are quite interesting. What about a more developed post on the member feed? I think a lot of people would want to weigh in.